Category: RFRA etc

“Freedom of religion is a fundamental right that protects all Americans, but this freedom does not include the right to restrict or control the behavior of others,” said Nicholas Little, Vice-President and General Counsel for the Center for Inquiry. “At its inception, CFI was one of very few voices cautioning that RFRA would permit religiously motivated discrimination, whether against religious minorities, the non-religious, women, or LGBTQ Americans. Sadly, we were right. But this fix [H.R. 5272] would help ensure that the law could no longer be used as a weapon to impose one person’s religious beliefs on other unwilling parties.” That quote is from this LINK

Summary of HB 401 currently before the Florida legislature: Groups can be exempt from the laws that others must follow IF they say they have an objection to the law based on a moral conviction.

What if the person’s moral compass has lost direction? What if the person’s moral conviction is advocating for an act that will harm or deny benefits to OTHERS?

Quote from this Link to what AU is saying about RFRA : The federal RFRA was meant to be a shield to safeguard religious freedom, not a sword to be used to harm others. Because people and corporations have been trying to use RFRA in recent years as a way to take away the rights of someone else, however, AU believes RFRA must be fixed.

Why do we want laws on the books that exempt some groups? Why not fair play? If the law or rule isn’t worthwhile, why do any of us have to follow it? Simple example: If you want to allow hijabs in the work place, then allow everyone to wear a hat or other head garment. Why not? What’s the harm? It is just a hat or scarf.

Quote from Marci Hamilton’s book God vs. The Gavel: At the same time, Schools must guard against enforcing their dress codes unevenly. If the school is willing to wink at the kid wearing a hat for fun, it cannot then punish the girl who shows up In a hijab.

There should be a different level of scrunity when your behavior harms or deprives others of benefits that most other people receive. IF you don’t want to fill prescriptions for birth control because you have a moral conviction against birth control then don’t become a pharmacist. If you don’t want to serve alcohol because of your moral convictions, then don’t apply for a job that includes that as part of the job duties. If you don’t want to marry people that don’t follow your own moral convictions, then don’t apply for a job that includes issuing marriage licenses as part of the job duties.

I am a feminist. Equal rights. BUT I don’t think that should mean that a woman who can’t do heavy lifting should apply for a job that requires heavy lifting then ask for an exemption. Please don’t misinterpret me. I know plenty of women can do heavy lifting. All I am trying to say is that IF your job conflicts with your moral convictions, then get another job. Am I wrong? If so, please tell me why.

I understand as a country that we are afraid of others persecuting us for our beliefs. That feeling makes us passionate about the religious liberty (or freedom of conscious) clause in the First Amendment. I am passionate about that also. BUT there is a limit. You shouldn’t be able to use it to harm others or deny others benefits.

If someone else’s religion scares you, then shouldn’t you fight for stronger church/state separation? Shouldn’t you fight to make sure everyone follows the laws that are designed to protect the people?

Please know WHY RFRA needs to be fixed so that it is not used to harm or deprive others of benefits that most people are free to enjoy. Read one of Marci Hamilton’s books about the issue. She gives lots of examples.

Perhaps because the First Amendment is so vague, we need some form of RFRA BUT it shouldn’t be used to harm people. It should be used for the government to encourage individuals to be more loving and STOP discriminating based on sex, race, religion, or sexual orientation. Marci gives an example of a child not being allowed to wear the Star of David but other kids being able to wear a cross at school. Rather than treating different religions differently, the school could have taken the opportunity to talk about the First Amendment and the desire of the founders of our country to escape from religious persecution so prevalent at the time our country was founded